Re: force partition pruning

Fair enough. Many thanks for taking time out to follow up and clear my misunderstanding. I’ll not pollute the thread , since OP got what he wanted. But I’ll have to spend more time trying to simulate it with data and reread what you want to say :). But thanks again for clearing that up. On Wed,

Re: ERROR: no known snapshots

reg_pg_stef...@perfexpert.ch writes: > it run into an issue with: ERROR:  no known snapshots Hi! This has been reported before, but I'm embarrassed to say that the previous report seems to have fallen between the cracks. I've created a patch [1] that resolves your example as presented. If you're

SV: force partition pruning

Fra: David Rowley Sendt: 12. maj 2021 02:34 >> >> ok i think i just may be there is very less data , hence no index scan, no >> pruning. >> >> when i try to force seq_scan off, >> > >Unfortunately, no run-time pruning occurred in the above plan. > >The fact that the above plan uses Append made

Re: force partition pruning

On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 06:33, Vijaykumar Jain wrote: > > ok i think i just may be there is very less data , hence no index scan, no > pruning. > > when i try to force seq_scan off, > > postgres=# set enable_seqscan TO off; > SET > postgres=# explain analyze select * from tprt where tprt.col1 in (

ERROR: no known snapshots

Hi it run into an issue with: ERROR:  no known snapshots It seems to me whenever I use a toasted value in a loop in plpgsql code  I get this error. Originally it happened in a procedure with a loop, without a setting of and explicit storage on the column, eg. extended. I can reproduce the erro

Re: force partition pruning

ok i think i just may be there is very less data , hence no index scan, no pruning. when i try to force seq_scan off, postgres=# set enable_seqscan TO off; SET postgres=# explain analyze select * from tprt where tprt.col1 in (select tbl1.col1 from tbl1 where tbl1.col2 in (1, 2) );

Re: force partition pruning

ok, partitioning - Can PostgreSQL 12 do partition pruning at execution time with subquery returning a list? - Stack Overflow ok forcing hash join off, did not work as th

Re: force partition pruning

Ok. maybe you are in a rush. But I would keep the thread open, to understand what I am not understanding or else, it'll become a habit of converting sql to plpgsql :) Big Guys, It seems, when the table is partitioned by range, it makes use of a nested loop which helps in partition pruning. if the

Re: Sequence gaps after restart

Christopher Sumner writes: > I'm using PostgreSQL v. 10.14 via AWS Aurora Serverless. Our users > recently noticed gaps in the primary ids for many of our tables. As I > understand it, this is due to PostgreSQL effectively caching 32 additional > sequence values (hardcoded in sequence.c ) and a

Re: Sequence gaps after restart

On 5/11/21 9:54 AM, Christopher Sumner wrote: Hello. I'm using PostgreSQL v. 10.14 via AWS Aurora Serverless. Our users recently noticed gaps in the primary ids for many of our tables.  As I understand it, this is due to PostgreSQL effectively caching 32 additional sequence values (hardcoded

Re: Sequence gaps after restart

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:55 PM Christopher Sumner wrote: > > Hello. > > I'm using PostgreSQL v. 10.14 via AWS Aurora Serverless. Our users recently > noticed gaps in the primary ids for many of our tables. As I understand it, > this is due to PostgreSQL effectively caching 32 additional seque

Sequence gaps after restart

Hello. I'm using PostgreSQL v. 10.14 via AWS Aurora Serverless. Our users recently noticed gaps in the primary ids for many of our tables. As I understand it, this is due to PostgreSQL effectively caching 32 additional sequence values (hardcoded in sequence.c ) and a 'restart' occurs. Losing a

SV: force partition pruning

> >Sorry, > >I made a major mistake. I somehow saw the period and period_version as the >same. >so, yes partitions are not pruned here. So my suggestion makes no sense. Thats quite ok. I think my plan now is to have a table returning function that executes a query dynamically. The query has a wh

Re: force partition pruning

Sorry, I made a major mistake. I somehow saw the period and period_version as the same. so, yes partitions are not pruned here. So my suggestion makes no sense. *** create table register(period_version text) partition by list ( period_version ); create table register_p1 part